the e-magazine
issue 20 / 2007
Mbizo Chirasha
Steven Cartwright
rene wadlow
Emanuel L. Paparella
sarah beetson
Alexander Mikhaylov
YOU ARE A LIAR
YOU ARE A LIAR
YOU ARE A LIAR YOU ARE A LIAR
YOU ARE A LIAR
WHO? ME?
“Anthem of the Black Poet” By Mbizo Chirasha the succulent breast of Mother Africa ooze with the milk of black renaissance the rich womb of Africa germinate seeds of black consciousness. the black blood bubble with identity of Africaness the sweat of my brows flow with the revolutions from slavery to independence i am the black poet i am the black poet black valleys bloom with flowers of Nehandaness african horizons shine with the rays of Nkurumahness black streets coloured with rainbows of Mandelaness black soil creamed with the wisdom of Mugabeness black spears sharpened with the conscience of Bikoness i am the black poet i sing of black culture bleaching in oceans of Coca Cola i sing of black culture fried in cauldrons of Floridarization i sing of black culture gambled in dark streets of sunset hills i sing of black culture burning in computer ages i am the black poet i sing of kings and their people i sing of black kings and their people i sing of the dead souls of black history i sing of the rising spirits of black renaissance i sing of the rising souls of black consciousness i sing for the rising spirits of pan Africaness i am the stone you left for the dead i am the tree bark oozing with blood of age i am the riverbed flowing with mucus of age i am the affidavit of black empowerment that require your stamp i am the title deed of black emancipation that need your signature i am the memorandum of black reparations
that need your fingerprint i am the certificate of black repatriation that need your identity card. i am the stone you left or the dead i am the tree bark oozing with blood of age i am the river bed flowing with mucus of age. my mind is the drainage pipe pumping out acids of mental suppression my mind s a drainage pipe pumping out cyanides of racial discrimination my mind is a drainage pipe pumping nitrates of economic dispossession. i am the stone you left for the dead i am the tree bark oozing with blood of age i am the riverbed flowing with mucus of age my gun is the rose of our freedom my bullet is the nectar of our reconciliation my bomb is the petal of our democracy my gun is our 1980 celebrations my bullet is our 1987 political revision. i am the stone you left for the dead i am the tree bark oozing with blood of age i am the river bed flowing with mucus of age is abortion a solution to overpopulation is demolition a solution to pollution is corruption a short cut to poverty reduction is balkanization a shortcut to colonization is condomization a shortcut to HIV mitigation HIV/AIDS has become business an import and export product like Coca Cola in America and NOKIA in Berlin. i am the stone you left for the dead i am the tree bark oozing with blood of age i am the river bed flowing with mucus of age.
n e e w t e b s u x e N The n i s c i t i l o P d n Art a s e i v o M r a W r u Fo By Emanuel L. Paparella
Abstract: By fighting fire with fire, politicalpropagandaruns the risk of prostituting not only truth but art itself. Evenwhenanideologically manipulateddocumentary shows some artistic merit, it rarely grapples with issues of peace and justice; neitherdoesitshedlighton thenexusbetweencultural imperialismandwar.Paradoxically, it becomes integral part of that nexus.
I’d
like to reflect upon four recent films that deal with the nexus between war, politics and art, and how the media often misperceives such a nexus, i.e., the meta-message of war reporting, for after all movie making is indeed an artistic enterprise. The four films, in order of appearance, are: István Szabó’s Taking Sides, which dwells on the so called de-Nazification process of the immediate post World War II era; Errol Morris’ The Fog of War dealing with Robert Mc Namara’s lessons learned from the Vietnam war, both appearing in 2003; Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, and Jehane Noujaim’s Control Room, both dealing with the reporting of the current Iraq war and appearing together in 2004. A brief description of each may benefit the readers who may not have viewed all four movies yet.
Taking Sides, focuses on the choices people make, or better, the choosing and changing of sides in pre and post war times, the particular circumstances that determine those choices, the attitudes toward those choices. The main protagonists of this movie are an American intelligence officer in post World War II occupied Germany, mandated with a tough assignment: the de-Nazification, i.e., the interrogation and investigation, of ex-Nazis and their collaborators, for possible rehabilitation and/or prosecution; and a famous German symphony conductor, Wilhelm Furtwangler, an extraordinarily gifted musician, on a par with an Arturo Toscanini, who is suspected of past Nazi collaboration. The American officer is convinced that Furtwangler was used by Hitler for propaganda purposes, as a sort of icon of German culture, and that Furtwangler, for his own ambitious motives and career advancement, willingly submitted to the exploitation, when he could have easily have left the Third Reich, as other luminaries had done. The film focuses around the tortu-
ous interrogation process of Furtwangler and some of his former musicians. To a man they all offer ready made rationalizations; they either declare themselves anti-Nazis, at worst, neutral bystanders who never confused art with politics. None of them seem to even entertain the notion that there may be a nexus between politics and culture. Some, among whom Furtwangler, maintain this stated position in good faith; others lie about it. It is important to keep in mind that the film is not a documentary but an historical movie objectively depicting real people and real events. However, those events are so authentically recreated that the viewer feels that she/he is watching a documentary. The film’s director makes a point of alerting us to this in an interview which accompanies the DVD but is not part of the film. The Fog of War is an actual documentary whose only character is Robert Mc Namara, Secretary of Defence under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. The questioning is done by the director who also assumes the role of interviewer; however, he never appears in the documentary. Throughout the film, his voice sounds dis-
tant, almost disincarnated. Hence, Mc Namara’s 107 minute narration feels more like a soliloquy than an interview, a sort of out loud rumination on the logic of war by a man, now 87 years old, who in the past has been involved in some momentous decisions on war and peace. He ruminates on the nature of war and its glorification and romanticization, on the real politick rationalizations of entire nations, their ineluctable choices often leading down the slippery path of national disasters; on the compromises with personal integrity by national leaders who have initiated a war and from w h i c h they can no longer extricate themselves; on the miscommunications leading to misunderstandings. The demonizing of the enemy and ultimately, to tragic wars that need not have happened. However, throughout the documentary Mc Namara appears as no vacillating Hamlet; rather, he projects the image of a competent, very cerebral leader, able to rationalize each and every choices he made in the light of
a real-politic paradigm (in this case that of the Cold War), and what he knew or did not know at the time. As the title of the film suggests, the fog and the confusion never seem to lie in Mac Namara’s mind but in the inherent nature of war. However, he does also imply that he is a bit wiser now at eighty three (his age at the time of the interview) than he was some forty years ago during the prime of his life; that is so because he has learned eleven lessons about war and peace which he wishes to share with the viewers. Nevertheless, while taking responsibility for his decisions, at no time in the interview does Mac Namara express any feeling of guilt, or even mere regret for his momentous decisions on the Vietnam War? He refuses to answer the question as to whether or not he has any. It is up to the viewer to determine the answer. And here lies the ambiguity of the documentary: the viewer has to decide for her/himself if Mc Namara decisions were indeed determined by a Cold War paradigm over which he had little control; or whether he was merely taking orders from President Johnson. If the latter is the case, then it would appear that he has not learned the most important lesson of the Nuremberg trials: that “I was only taking orders” is no excuse in the court of public opinion and the international Court of Justice for alleged war crimes. Be that as it may, here too, the director of the documentary offers us no clues as to where he himself stands on the issue. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a different beast altogether. It was produced on a 6 million dollar budget and a 10 million dollar advertising campaign; almost twice the production cost. It became at the time the highest grossing documentary film of all time. Talk show host Bill O’Reilly liked Moore to Nazi propagandist
Josef Goebbels. That kind of charge only lent the movie more publicity sending Moore laughing all the way to the Bank. What is most intrigu-
ry” the director-interviewer is very much in the film, almost as a protagonist. We not only hear his voice but see his face, even glimpse into his mind. How his mind works may indeed be more intriguing than the subject matter it deals with. Indeed, we know from the start of the film where Moore’s sympathies lie. There are no uncertainties here, no fog of war, no ambiguities, ambivalences or dilemmas of any kind. Even the interpretation of the events is simple and black and white, with clear demarcations between good and evil, truth and falsehood.
“Not knowing what to do, with no one telling him what to do, and with no secret service rushing in to take him to safety, Mr. Bush just sat there, and continued to read “My Pet Goat” with the children... Nearly seven minutes passed with nobody doing anything.” Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 ing, however, is that the film was also awarded the Cannes’ Palm d’Or for best documentary of the year. No doubt there is geniality at work here. Let us see. Fahrenheit 9/11 delves into the motives behind the decision to go to war in Iraq, after the events of September 11, or perhaps before those events. Unlike The Fog of War, however, in this “documenta-
From the beginning we realize that we are not dealing with a documentary aiming at strict objectivity, but with a sort of prosecution by the shadow protagonists of the documentary, i.e., the director Michael Moore parading as an objective, if slightly clownish, observer of the
facts. Here the messenger is the message, and he comes across not as an investigator, a seeker after truth, but as a sleek lawyer coyly trying to persuade us the jury, in the process becoming part of the trial’s content. Therefore, claiming documentary status for the film begins to appear rather fraudulent to the perceptive viewer. It is analogous to somebody showing us a photo as evidence for a crime, and reminding us that a picture is worth a thousand words; and indeed it is; for if the picture has been digitally doctored it will tell us, more than a thousand words ever could, something about the motives of the doctoring agent. Be that as it may, what exactly is the charge here? It is this: there is a nefarious convergence of interests between the Bush family and the Saudis, not excluding the wealthy Bin Laden family, which has driven the political agenda and has led to the fabrication of false intelligence to push the nation in a war. These are very serious charges that even a sleek lawyer would not dare present without hard, irrefutable evidence, not mere insinuations, chronological juxtapositions narrated in a non-linear mode, circumstantial evidence, and dots that never get connected, as is the case here. It all begs the questions: if the intent was prosecutorial, why was this film awarded a prize for best documentary? Would not “best propaganda film” have been a more appropriate description for the award? Was such an award given for art or for mere politics? And what does that awarding say about those who granted it? Is would appear that here not only truth but art got a good rub down. As Marshall McLuhan used to say, sometime the message is a massage. Can propaganda ever be passed on as art, the handmaiden of truth? We shall return to these thorny questions further down in the essay.
Control Room also presents itself as a documentary on the reporting of the war in Iraq by the media. Unlike Fahrenheit 9/11 however, it is not prosecutorial; rather, it attempts to delve into the issue of what happens to the truth vis-à-vis the slippery news-reporting of war. Indeed, in the fog of war, truth often gets not only massaged but prostituted
“If we can’t persuade nations with comparable values of the merits of our cause, we’d better reexamine our reasoning.” Robert McNamara, The Fog of War too. As such this is that rare documentary with a meta-message, i.e., behind the matter it deals with, there is an existential philo-political investigation concerned with the issue of culture, its nexus with political power, and the propaganda generated thereby. This is the kind of issue on which Antonio Gramsci used to ruminate behind the bars of Fascist jails where, to keep his mental sanity, he wrote a whole book on the subject on toilet paper (Literature and National Life), eventually perishing there. Noujaim’s documentary takes the viewers behind the curtains of the controversial Arab news organization, Al Jazeera. The Bush administration has declared it a tool of antiAmerican propaganda. Vis-à-vis this sort of charge, Noujaim does not play either investigative detective or prosecuting lawyer; she does not fight fire with fire, rather, she lets the camera do the work of fer-
reting out the truth, without rhetorical flourishes, as most good documentaries indeed do. By saying less she ends up saying much more than Moore. The viewer is likely to be more persuaded by what the camera has unobtrusively shown, than by a verbose prosecution. For example, the documentary reveals that while the American reporters that Noujaim surveys seem critical-thinking challenged, in as much as they are unduly affected by Pentagon spinners, the feverish ravings of an American academic against “American imperialism” far from being welcome, provoke this reaction from the senior producer at Al Jazeera, Samir Khader: “Where did you get this guy? He is just a crazy activist.” It is in this kind of attempt at objectivity that the contrast between the two films (i.e., Moore and Noujaim’s) is most apparent. A caveat to the reader is in order at this point: although I am a film buff and have studied and taught neorealist Italian film within a literary framework, I am no film critic, hence this analysis and critique is not concerned with aesthetic merits per se; I shall leave that to more competent persons. As the same title of this essay-review suggests, my interest lies not in the message but the meta-message: what these four films reveal of the nexus between art, politics, propaganda, within the overarching theme of the search for truth. This is a complex subject, to be sure. Hence, what follows is merely an exploration and a challenging of the taken-for-granted conventional wisdom and “politically-correct” assumptions. Indeed the etymology of the word essay (i.e., attempt) suggests as much. When we compare those four war movies, we soon become aware that the one that stands out like a sore
thumb is Moore’s self-declared documentary. The directors of Taking Sides, The Fog of War and Control Room have all taken themselves out of the picture, so to speak. It is as if the story is narrating itself through the camera. This is in the nature of a good documentary. It was integral part of the Italian neo-realist movie of the 40s reflecting the neo-realist literature of a Giovanni Verga or Ignazio Silone attempting to convey the impression to the readers that the story has no author, that the book had written itself, as it were. This is surely not the case with Fahrenheit 9/11 wherein the director’s ego is narcissistically all over the place as a clown in a circus, distracting us from both the subject matter and
the issue of the documentary. To return to the comparison with Taking Sides, the title of the film refers not only to the people portrayed in the film, those who changed sides after the war, but perhaps more importantly, it also refers to us the viewers who, after viewing the movie, are also challenged to take side pro or con Futwangler. This is so because its director refuses to even hint at his own view or offer us any sort of interpretation. The viewer must come to his own conclusions in the matter, independent of the director’s opinion. This is diametrically opposed to Moore’s propagandistic tactics.
In the second place, the same people who work with the American investigator (the translator and the secretary) retain an ambiguous attitude throughout; contrary to the contemptuous attitude of the interrogating American officer, their feelings seem to fall in between admiration and pity. For after all, Furtwangler, unlike some of the musicians who lied about it, never actually joined the Nazi party; moreover even if he somewhat disingenuously insists that he knew nothing of the concentration camps, he also alleges to have helped some of his Jewish fellow-musicians. On the other hand, he did bask in the glory and notoriety that came his way by propagandizing German culture. Was it love of art or love of glory? The ambiguity of it all is what makes this a powerfully authentic historical film. We the viewers, if we are sensitive to that ambiguity, need to come to terms with our own feelings and vulnerabilities by asking ourselves not only if Furtwangler was sincere in his insistence that he always kept art and politics separate, or whether indeed it is possible to do so, but if we too would have acted like him under similar circumstances. This is the kind of ambivalence and ambiguity which is part of the existential internal struggle within each human heart, wholly lost on a Moore who seems to be perfectly happy with merely opposing unfairness to unfairness. To make his prosecutorial points, he likes to manipulate the medium while massaging the truth, to make
up stories, to rearrange and juxtapose them by a false chronology. For example a letter to the editor becomes a newspaper’s headline. He dares call his films documentaries supported by facts. Norman Mailer
had a name for those sorts of facts. He called them “factoids”: things that seem to be facts bur they are not actually true. However, Mailer was more honest in this regard and never called his war novels historical writings. There is however something in common between Moore and Mailer: they both have mistaken fleeting celebrity with lasting influence. Mailer thinks of himself as another Said, or perhaps another Umberto Eco. Moore thinks of himself as another Rossellini, or perhaps another Fellini. However, while Moore, like Fellini, plays the clown in the circus of life and makes us laugh,
he has no ethical insights to offer, merely an ideology to defend and to sell. To borrow an image from Aristotle, the two resemble pugilists swinging away with no opponents, appealing to spectators in love with a form that blinds them to the content. Even worse, the ideologically agreeable content, devoid of artistic merits, may be what was really rewarded at Cannes. There is an essay by Andrew Breitbart and Mark Ebner which says it all much better. It is titled “Hollywood Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon: The Case against Celebrity.” They make the case for hypocrisy among the entertainment elites of Hollywood. The problem is perhaps best expressed by an editorial op-ed piece in the Washington Times by Suzanne Fields which ends thus: “The likes of Barbara Streisand and Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn and Michael Moore see themselves as thinkers. Intoxicated with celebrity status, they confuse their talent for fantasy with real-life significance. The prizes they win say more about the prizegivers than about the fantasizers they celebrate. Moore’s the pity.” Moore wants to serve us the naked truth, at any cost, but as Umberto Eco has observed, truth is a very modest lady and loathes showing herself naked. Serious criticism, the kind that a Said or a Fallaci can dish out, is quite different from titillation or manufactured controversies, or straw arguments, or distorted facts or caricatures parading as the truth and ending up in sheer slander and arguments ad hominem. Which is to say, Moore has no alternatives
to offer to what he obsessively inveighs against; his is merely the other side of the coin of evangelical fundamentalism, which he claims to disdain. In Moore’s films we detect no ambiguity. It is all simplistically Manichean: Puritan certainty wherein evil is always out there on the other side, to be eradicated, and God is always on one’s side. Not surprisingly, his films lack the human touch which is powerfully present in Szabó, Morris and Noujaim’s films. To confirm this assessment, it would be enough to speculate on what would a Moore do to the army spokesperson Josh Rushing, one of Control Room’s primary characters. He would most probably mercilessly destroy his career and reputation, but in doing so he would also miss what a Nowjaim is able to catch: Rushing’s perplexity when the US government condemns Al Jazeera for broadcasting a video of the mutilated bodies of American soldiers. Rushing describes his distress at watching the video, then he frankly admits that when the next night the network showed wounded and dead Iraqis, he was less bothered; he finds this phenomenon rather disturbing. He then blurts out: “It makes me hate war.” So, while Noujaim, Szabó and Morris honour people by exploring their mixed motives and conflicting allegiances, Moore’s “documentaries” (whose production company is appropriately named “Dog eat Dog Films”), disrespect their intelligence. They appear in comparison mere propaganda weapons, pitting unfairness against unfairness, ideology against ideology. Now, this prosecutorial strategy may even be genial a la Leni Riefenstahl, but genial or not, it remains mere propaganda, offering no glimpse of a world without war, of a disinterested viewer, or a conflicted mind and heart.
This comparison in the end leaves us perplexed and begs the question: is propagandistic art devoid of ethics real art? In Noujaim’s closing scene we see an unexpected rain falling over the media outpost in the desert and Khader muses over the futility of trying to cover war in a fair way. He exclaims: “Victory, and that’s it. People like victory. You do not have to justify it. Once you are victorious, that’s it.” Indeed, as a close friend reminded me in an email exchange, history is written by the victors, they have the final control room. My friend has no doubt that had the Germans or the Japanese won the war they would have been the ones to conduct Nuremberg war crime trials for the Dresden and the Hiroshima bombings, as well as the abandoning of the Warsaw insurgents by the Soviets. He certainly has a valid historical point which in a sense goes all the way back to Thucydides’ ruminations on the war of Athens against Thebes and the awful nature of war in general. Be that as it may, what, if anything, can then the observing writer or film director do in the face of the sad reality of the nature of war? I would suggest nothing but observe and report, that’s his job. In that serene observation and reporting, the truth, as distinguished from mere propaganda, may appear as a sort of epiphany. In Nowjaim’s Control Room, there is an eloquent example of this: at one point one of the reporters, Hassan Ibrahim, frustrated by the American condemnation of Al Jazeera for showing Iraqi civilians wounded in bombing raids, exclaims angrily: “You are the most powerful nation on earth, I agree. You can defeat everybody, I agree. You can crush everyone, I agree. But don’t ask us to love it as well!” And yet, moments later when a colleague asks Ibrahim who is going to stop the Americans, he answers thus: “The United States is going
to stop the United States. I have absolute confidence in the American Constitution. And I have absolute confidence in the ability of the American people.”
“It makes me hate war, but it doesn’t make me believe that we’re in a world that can live without war yet.” Lt. Josh Rushing, Control Room It is that confidence in the people that allows a good journalist or a good film director to shut his mouth and let the people speak through the camera. Try as you may, you will not find this kind of ambivalence and openness to ambiguity in any of Moore’s condescending documentaries. Noujaim, Szabó and Morris’ films imply that in the final analysis, all that can be done is to merely assert an idea and a model of truth and fairness, however doomed, and then put one’s mind at rest by letting it lie for a while, like a seed beneath the snow, in the hope that it will spring eternal in what Silone has dubbed the spring-time of the “the conspiracy of hope.” For indeed Hermes always reaches his destination, especially when his messages have the form of authentic art. While Silone’s message is all but lost on the arrogant Moores of this world in love with their shallow political certainties, there is an important lesson to be learned from Fahrenheit 9/11, a sort of twelfth lesson to be added to the eleven lessons on war of McNamara, and it is this: truth is always war’s first casualty.
“Bodies” By Sarah Beetson
This series is from my recent exhibition: “Bodies”. They were inspired by my trip to Hiroshima. The 4 Japanese atom bomb babies are directly referenced from lab photos of babies born after the atomic bomb (between 1945 and 1948). The lyrics that run across the paintings are from the 1957 song “Atom Bomb Baby” by U.S band The Five Stars. The ‘nuclear future’ quote came from the Australian PM and the opposing party responded with “John Howard is living in a nuclear fairyland”. The 4 celebrity babies were born in the same years in the Western world.
Got a doll, bab y, I love her so Nothing else lik e her anywhere you go Man, she’s anyt hing but calm A regular pint sized atom bo mb Atom bomb b aby, little atom bomb I want her in m y wigwam She’s just the w ay I want her to be A million time s hotter than T NT Atom bomb b aby loaded wit h power Radioactive as a T V tower A nuclear fissio n in her soul Loves with ele ctronic contro l Atom bomb b aby, boy she ca n start One of those ch ain reactions in m y heart A big explosio n, big and loud Mushrooms m e right up on a cloud
Atom bomb b aby sweet as a plum Carries more w allop than ura n ium When she kisse s, there’s no hit ch Zero power, sh e turns on the switch Atom bomb b aby, little atom bomb I want her in m y wigwam She’s just the w ay I want her to be A million time s hotter than T N T Atom bomb b aby, little atom bomb! “Atom Bomb Baby” - The Five Stars, 1957
This is the piece that started off my preoccupation with nuclear waste. John Howard (Australian PM) is pushing to strengthen Australia’s wealth and position in the energy crisis by mining the large reserves of uranium mainly for U.S export. Of course, the majority of the current and proposed mines (and dumping sites) are close to aboriginal territories, and far away from all the major cities. So hence, the aboriginal kids in this piece are wearing rather different sportswear brands, and their skin is broken up with insertions of damaged cells and DNA.
W.H. Auden:
Poet of the Age of Anxiety
By Rene Wadlow René Wadlow is also editor of the online journal of world politics www.transnationalperspectives.org and an NGO representative to the UN, Geneva. Formerly, he was professor and Director of Research of the Graduate Institute of Development Studies, University of Geneva.
Wystan Hugh Auden, whose birth 100 years ago in 1907, is marked this year by two separate groups of poetry readers. Each group celebrates half of his poetic life and rather tries to forget about the other half, seeing one part of his life as the perfect image of the modern poet who lost his way. There is the W.H. Auden (he rarely used his first names) of the 1930s, the English political poet who reported on the Spanish civil war and the start of the Sino-Japanese war in 1939. Then, there is the poet living in the USA during the 1940s who became a US citizen and became primarily concerned with what was called at the time “neoorthodox Protestant” theology. Finally there is the writer largely of book reviews and short literary essays living much of the time in Italy and Austria until his death in 1973 in Vienna. The one constant running through his life and coloring his more personal writings was a homosexual bonding to men that he hoped would last and never did as reflected in his poem It’s No Use raising a Shout: It’s no use raising a shout. No, Honey, you can cut that right out. I don’t want any more hugs; Make me some fresh tea. In 1930, shortly after publishing his first book of poems, he went to
live in Berlin. The Berlin of Weimar Germany was more tolerant of open homosexuality than was the England of his youth. In Berlin, he began an intensive literary and onagain-off-again sexual relationship with Christopher Isherwood (19041986). The two men had known each other slightly at Oxford University. The somewhat older Isherwood was already well introduced in the English publishing and art world. He helped Auden with introductions to editors. It was T.S. Eliot’s publisher Faber & Faber which published Auden on Eliot’s recommendation even if Eliot’s conservative religious and political positions were the opposite of Auden’s. In Berlin, Auden and Isherwood became aware of social unrest and the clash between the Communists and the rising Nazi party. Auden became a Marxist because Marxism provided a ready-made structure to explain conflict. All his life Auden was interested in developing frameworks to interpret social and religious categories, and the Marxist dialectic was both a philosophy of history and a structure to understand current events. Auden, however, was never attracted to the political parties that were the manifestations of Marxist views. With Isherwood, Auden wrote a number of verse plays that combined humor, irony with the issues of the day. It was a socially-conscious art but they never departed from a certain ironic tone and a concern with language. Auden was always concerned with the impact of words, and his poems were usually
clear and in a conversational style. He could recognize the importance of style and the use of words of other poets. In the 1930s, confronted with social unrest, William Butler Yeats moved increasingly to the Right even urging “the despotic rule of the educated classes”. In 1933, Yeats was for a short time drawn towards General O’Duffy, leader of the Irish Fascists — the Blue Shirts. Fortunately, O’Duffy was a clown from whom Yeats separated quickly but not from some of O’Duffy’s ‘law and order’ ideas. Thus, although Yeats had become an opponent of Auden’s values, Auden’s tribute to Yeats on his death in 1939 is one of the most moving and just. “ But there is one field in which the poet is a man of action, the field of language, and it is precisely in this that the greatness of the deceased is most obviously shown. However false or undemocratic his ideas, his diction shows a continuous evolution toward what one might call the true democratic style. The social virtues of real democracy are brotherhood and intelligence, and the parallel linguistic virtues are strength and clarity, virtues which appear even more clearly through successive volumes by the deceased.” When the Spanish civil war broke out, Auden was immediately drawn to the Republican cause. He went to Spain thinking of becoming an ambulance driver. However, his literary talents were more needed in the information and propaganda services. In Spain, he saw that the political realities were more ambiguous
Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone, Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone, Silence the pianos and with muffled drum Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come. ‘Funeral Blues’, W.H. Auden, 1936 and troubling than he thought, but he saw that war was ready to expand. He also saw the link between events in Europe and Asia. In 1938, Auden and Isherwood went to China to cover the Sino-Japanese conflict and jointly wrote a powerful account Journey to a War. On their way back by boat from China, Auden and Isherwood decided to stay in the USA. Auden in New Year Letter reviews the political decade in which he had been the leading poetry voice of the Left: Who, thinking of the last ten years Does not hear howling in his ears The Asiatic cry of pain The shots of executing Spain See stumbling through his outraged mind The Abyssinians, blistered, blind, The dazed uncomprehending stare Of the Danubian despair The Jew wrecked in the German cell, Flat Poland frozen into hell. Once in the USA, the Auden-Isherwood couple broke. Auden wrote: If equal affection cannot be Let the more loving one be me. Isherwood moved to California and became part of the religious-mystical circle around Aldous Huxley and Gerald Heard. Isherwood became a disciple of the Indian teacher Swami Prabhavananda and cooperated in the translations of a number of Indian religious texts. Later Isherwood’s memories of Berlin Good-
bye to Berlin served as the basis of plays and films. Meanwhile, Auden stayed on the East Coast, first teaching at Swarthmore, a Quaker college near Philadelphia from 1942 -45; he then lived in New York City in the literary fashionable St Marks Place. He began writing for US journals, in particular The New Yorker and Vogue both of which paid well so that he could write without having a regular teaching job, though he was often asked to give lectures at universities. Auden became increasingly influenced by the Protestant theologian and political analyst Reinhold Niebuhr who was teaching in New York City. Niebuhr combined a socialist-leaning politics with a Protestant theology which stressed that humans were always limited in their ability to do good by the reality of sin, which is self-centeredness. In the Niebuhr spirit, Auden wrote “Man is not, as the romantics imagined, good by nature. Men are equal not in their capacities and virtues but in their natural bias toward evil. No individual or class therefore can claim an absolute right to impose its view of good upon them. Government must be democratic, the people must have a right to make their own mistakes and to suffer for them.” In New York, Auden entered into a long-term literary and homosexual relationship with Chester Kallman,
a younger poet and writer. The two together began writing opera libretti for the English composer Benjamin Britten, who also spent the war years in the USA. They wrote together the words for Britten’s opera Paul Bunyan – a folk hero that Britten used to deal with his newlydiscovered American themes, as well as the words for many of Britten’s song cycles. Kallman and Auden wrote Rake’s Progress for Igor Stravinsky who had also moved to the USA as well as an opera of Hans Henze based on The Bacchae of Euripides. To mark the war years and the start of the Cold War, Auden wrote The Age of Anxiety which won the Pulitzer Prize for poetry in 1947. While the book was not that widely read, the title gave its name to a whole period and sections of it were often quoted. By 1948, Auden was again attracted to life in Europe but largely places that were not associated in his mind with his experiences of the 1930s. He spent part of each year in Italy and later both Italy and Austria. He returned to Oxford University to give some lectures on poetry, but post-war England held out few attractions for him. Although he continued writing book reviews and short essays, his declining years never caught the spirit of the times as did his 1930s poems and his 1947 The Age of Anxiety. Nevertheless, his work merits being known, a voice of a time past.
Haiti” “LetteMr bifrzooChm irasha By
black sister whose blood flow in my veins my wounds are your blisters that boil with the fear of tomorrow and the bitterness of yesterday this letter is to convince stones and bones that my blood flow in your veins that you are my black sister in bullets, in stars, in freedom, in flowers, in dust for those who groan alone die alone and those who weep together, laugh together i am not Indian, i am not Haitian, not American, not Anglican i am the daughter of the moon and dust shipped up to hear by the boat that missed bullets during the exodus.
“Goodbye Prague”
By Alexander Mikhaylov Living in Prague for six years Then moving away Then Returning a year later For short stay ‘How do you feel about coming back to Prague?’ ‘I don’t know... Well, actually... I feel nothing’ Indeed Nothing goes right Failing to perform a grand entrance Dead drunk in Berlin, spacing out on a bench Of the bus station The Prague bus is late as usual Finally it arrives Climbing in, falling asleep Being hauled outside
By border control Two guys dressed in vomit green Leafing through your passport ’You have no Czech visa.’ ’No.’ ’You’ve got no stamp in Berlin.’ ’No.’ ’How long are you going to stay in Prague?’ ’A week, maybe a bit longer.’ ’We’ll write down your passport number.’ ’All right.’ A day later Walking down the street, scanning the street, Trying to feel sentimental but failing at that too Sitting in a pub, killing time Shopping... ’But I still feel nothing. How come?’
Staying in somebody’s apartment A front door is Pregnant with industrial locks (and none of them functions properlyEven a landlord is having troubles opening them) Roar of a drill in an apartment below at nine am Dog shit lying on pavement In short Here they are: All these familiar forms of local madness but These days they leave me unperturbed Once I hoped to find home here but It seems to be all in the past, dead and gone now ’So what do you think?’ ’Oh well, I think it’s just Some ordinary Central European city.’
Steve Cartwright
“Anthem to my People” By Mbizo Chirasha i am the blister of the time to resurrect souls from decades of servitude i am not a commercial break in a feminist magazine i am not a condom advert in sexist newsletter i am not a dumping site of racial hogwash i am a dream of time i am a dream of time i sing to the messiah turned Judas race obsessed tsars of this world reading bullet sanctioned letters posting neurotoxin smeared parcels buckets brimming of bulletcraft pockets empty of freedomcraft where heroes are created by propaganda and legends are made of rumours every rose belong the state every child belong the slum every prayer belong to the gutter every stomach belong to the militia i am a dream of time i am a dream of time freedom mothers domesticated into birth giving machines beautiful sisters tamed into money guzzling slot machines bible missionaries baptizing themselves into mental sodomizing machines democracy prize laureates gambled as passports of political expediency i am not a forgotten rotting dream for the oppressed become the parents of time and the oppressors become the children of time i am the formulae of peace and freedom i am a dream of time i am a dream of time.
“Tribute” By Mbizo Chirasha my poetry sing of legends, legends of innocence legends of conscience legends of renaissance LUTHER, SAROWIWA, MARLEY, NKURUMAH, SAMORA, FANON and others swallowed by the mercenary train my poetry is angry my poetry is pregnant with emotion it spits global confusion remember chimurenga chant umvukela sing mau-mau sing maji maji robin was not a garden of roses it was a dungeon of blisters rise MADIBA, TAMBO, LITHULI these are not toys but heroes rise BIKO, UMKONTO WE SIZWE THE SPEAR OF AFRICA
OviBookshop THE DEAD PINKY by Theo Versten “The thing was that it just freaked me out that she didn’t have a pinky finger on her right hand anymore…” Theo Versten’s intriguing opening line develops this physical mutilation into a college relationship with a difference. Be warned, it may not be suitable for the faint of heart…
Hemingway’s curse by Alexandra Pereira The Compleat Angler Hotel on the island of Bimini, in the Bahamas, was destroyed by fire a few years ago. It was one of the refuges of Ernest Hemingway and it is believed he wrote a few novels there. Now, it has inspired a different kind of story. The author felt the news failed to reflect the extent of the fiery destruction and begins her journey to change all that.
RIP 2006 cartoons’ book by Thanos Kalamidas Six-feet-under, two corpses voice their strong, yet humorous, opinions on contemporary events, plus they are occasionally joined by everybody’s favourite bloodsucker. Download the complete 2006 ‘R.I.P., including the Dracula’ today.
ShowBizz, Directing. Book #1 by Thanos K & Asa B How many cocks have you ever seen? Perhaps I should rephrase that: how many roosters have you ever met? I have met one rooster in my life and it was a nasty day on the farm… if you want to see what happened just … read the first book with the adventures of Showbizz
The Trunk by Bohdan Yuri Bohdan Yuri has captured the emotion of a young girl’s decision to leave home and explore the waiting world, but a letter written by her recently deceased grandfather may change all that. Download this touching short story today.
A Mika Moose Christmas by Thanos K & Asa B The Christmas adventure that has been on everybody’s lips. The simple story of a moose and a magpie saving Christmas - what more could you want?
Beautiful People #1 by Thanos Kalamidas The Extraordinary Beautiful People is Thanos Kalamidas’ graphic novel debut and it is unlike anything you have ever seen before. Dark, surreal, stylish and thought provoking are just four adjectives that come to mind, but feel free to choose some of your own.
Beautiful People #2 by Thanos Kalamidas Ovi proudly presents ‘The Extraordinary Beautiful People’ festive edition, which turns Christmas on its head, leaving you staring into empty darkness and wondering how it can still be so surreal, yet so cool.
Jan Sand “The Prisoner”
“Apartheid Strawberries” By Mbizo Chirasha
I wonder why the world dress mercenaries in robes labelled democracy apartheid butcher men parading in plastic handcuffs i was born when Alfonso and Dhlakama break fast Portuguese tea freedom bleaching in mercenary bleached minds I was born years when Slobodan, waved goodbye to Saddam saddam waving back to Slobodan i was born when conspiracy programs crucified torijos and jaime after the heart beating obituaries of Allende and Surkano after the freedom messiahs, Lumumba and Nkuruma kissed their rifles and Bibles goodbye. when great crocodile prayed for the miracle of the rainbow nation to canvas genocide blisters africa is tired of reaping apartheid strawberries.
E V E R Y
Y E A R
W E
F I G H T
T O
END RACISM And we will keep on fighting until we do.
“Only takes one tree to make 1,000 matches Only takes one match to burn a thousand trees” - ‘A Thousand Trees’ by the Stereophonics
How can I play hide & seek
when 21 children die every minute? Who’ll play football with me when
21 friends die every minute?
If I close my eyes and count to a 100.
35 children are dead.
Imagine
a future in which cows are extinct. Imagine your children can only see them in books. Imagine you could have done something to save them. Don’t wait until it is too late.
Act now and protect our planet.
Nuclear fusion TEARS the world apart SAY YES TO PEACE
We believe there is nothing more disabling than pity.
Every month over 2,000 people are killed or maimed by mine explosions.